Peut-on trouver une justification éthique à l'usage de la torture pendant l'interrogatoire ?

Exposé Politique & international Sciences politiques

Date de publication :

02/10/2009

Langue :

Anglais

Format :

.doc

Nombre de pages :

11 pages

Niveau :

grand public

Consulté :

0 fois

Avis client :

non évalué

Validé par :

le comité Oboulo.com

9,95 € Ajouter au panier

Sommaire :

Sommaire

The ''war on terror'' has exacerbated the belief that torture during interrogation is justifiable and has created a legal environment in which torture is possible
The attempts to make an ethical case for the use of torture during interrogation
1. The false assumption of the effectiveness of torture
2. Torture as pragmatically desirable
3. Torture as morally acceptable because of its pragmatic effectiveness
However, torture can never be justifiable
1. Torture is inherently and morally wrong
2. Torture during interrogation is inefficient
3. The problem of the slippery slope

Résumé :

In the ancient Greece and Rome, the testimony of a slave would not be taken into account in a judicial investigation unless the statement had been obtained after the subject was submitted to torture. Nowadays, although torture has been banned from legal systems and condemned at the international level, it continues to be widespread.
There has been a semantic evolution of the word "torture" through the centuries, and this evolution has also had an impact on the concept itself. In that sense, as Peters points out, before the 17th Century, the definition was purely legal, and referred to a "torment inflicted by a public authority for ostensibly public purposes". After that date, the definition started to be more moral, to become, since the 19th Century, a sentimental one. What this evolution means, is that torture is more and more perceived as a private element, which, according to Peters, is inaccurate. As far as he is concerned, torture belongs to the public sphere, and as an illustration, he provides a comparison between torture and execution, explaining that torture is to "aggravated assault" what execution is to "murder" . This distinction is the one that has also been made by the legislators and that is transcribed in the texts prohibiting torture and separating it from other "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

The question that arises therefore is the following: how can the persistence of the practice of torture worldwide be explained given this legal base of protection? In fact, it is easy to sidestep these rules in spaces of secrecy, through the creation of legal fictions like it will be observed further, and by adapting the methods. This implies the use of what some call "torture lite" , which consists on practices that do not leave long-lasting physical traces, like the falanga, hooding until the fainting of the victim, humiliation, sensorial deprivation, psychological torture etc. This does however not mean that torture is softer, it only renders it more difficult to detect and to prove.
Knowing that torture is practiced in one out of three states all around the world, including those democracies which have ratified the treaties prohibiting torture and which have committed themselves to the protection of human rights, can an ethical case ever be made for the use of torture during interrogation?